patrick.net

You don't think it's not insulting to be told that an inflated health insurance by more than 40% since the health care bill was passed, to have it be called "Universal Health Care"?

Or to be asked who are you voting for, then to be told you're in favor of a litany of crap that has nothing to do with the outcome of who I vote for. Nor does it establish that those accomplishments were indeed merit of any accolades or anything to attribute to Obama?

Or the selective lucidity, they are good at deducing what you said when you didn't, but can't seem to grasp your other points?

...Didn't vote.

American in Japan says

How will the candidate of your choice be an improvement over Obama? What policies will be implemented...? Please be specific. I have my criticisms of Obama , incidentally, but I want to know who is better and why.

Crickets?

Romney would be a fine president. He has had executive experience on the highest level below president (governor). He has also had *successful* business experience in the private sector.
However, it's not rocket science how to try to improve the economy.
Romney is so far the only candidate who says he supports E-verify. This would make it difficult for employers to hire illegal aliens.
Romney does not have a sweeping tax reform plan, so he may be unsatisfactory for some conservatives.
Romney also does not spout sweeping "moral issues" like Santorum.However, most people do not want to hear any nonsense from elected people about "values" unless they are talking about American values.
I doubt we'll see Romney traveling the world to apologize for the USA and he surely won't be bowing and kowtowing to his foreign lessers either. We won't see Romney bow to a saudi prince who's descended from savage nomadic desert tribes.
Rewarding failure and sloth is not a way to get Americans working again. Punishing success, capital and investment is not either.
Making worthless wasteful (mal)investments in solar schemes, electric cars and windmill boondoggles is not going to be repeated.

Not attacking here, but much of what you've said is rhetoric.

To summarize:

1) Governors are good. (All Governors have the requisite experience?)

2) Promises to be tough on undocumented workers (Obama has deported more than Bush). Do Romney's promises mean anything?

3) Romney is not palatable to conservatives

4) Romney is distrusted by the evangelicals, a large part of the GOP coalition

5) Saudi what? Bandar Bush? This is almost so inconsequential as to not warrant a response. But, again, because you doubt something doesn't make it so. Political promises are often broken, but with Romney you are guaranteed of it, since he's been on both sides of every issue!

6) Rewarding failure and punishing success was what happened PRIOR to the bubble bursting. Unless we believe that Wall street brigandage is "success"?

7) How is pioneering new technology less preferable to subsidizing old energy sources? Take battery technology--as batteries become stronger, lighter, more durable and contain more capacity, all of the devices that depend on them benefit.

This is an endorsement of Romney? He made his money through brigandage!

CL says

Can Jehovah's witness businesses deny blood transfusion coverage for their employees? Or can Christian Scientists deny surgery or drug coverage?

Believers can still refuse treatment, right? But employees aren't forced to believe what their employers believe.

I'd say THAT infringes upon the employee's rights, and would result in a scarier outcome than offering, but not requiring, condoms for Catholic employees.

Remember that this affects employees only, not religious institutions.

Pregnancy is not a disease and not covering the pill on an insurance policy doesn't prevent anyone access to the pill. You're comparison isn't fair and is disingenuous.

Let's put this awful law in the hands of the other side - suddenly HHS Secretary Palin decides that insurers must cover abstinence education as a benefit. Who would be crying foul then? If Sebelius can giveth, it can (and much more) be taken away. Why would we let what is covered and what is not covered be politicized like this? It's ridiculous. This is why the "death panel" argument is so plausible in many people's minds. This is why the law needs to be fully repealed or thrown out by the SCOTUS. We waited until it was passed to see what was in it - and now we know it is a turkey.

So, one of the main arguments for this albatross was that people were going bankrupt on medical bills - and one of the solutions is to mandate the pill be covered by a religious institution that preaches against contraception? Really? A little overreaching don't you think? The Democrats had their chance to do this right and they blew it from my perspective.

Cloud,

You're beating a dead horse. Obama has banksters in the administration. We get it. So will Romney if he becomes President.

The democrats are the only ones that even think of taxing the rich to help prevent an aristocracy. Guess who blocked any tax increases for the super rich? Oh yeah, that's right. The republicans.

If you don't want Obama in the White House, who do you want in there? It's not enough to just be against something. Suggest a positive alternative.

wthrfrk80 says

The democrats are the only ones that even think of taxing the rich to help prevent an aristocracy. Guess who blocked any tax increases for the super rich? Oh yeah, that's right. The republicans.

That whole thought is as backwards as the Reagan era "Trickle Down economics". Taxing the Rich more doesn't explain how that will create more jobs and imporove the plight of the middle class. If it's just about creating a better "Poor on the dole" system. Then I say no thanks.

Teach a man to fish and all that. I'd much rather have the fish comeback, so I can catch them myself, that to be feed Long John Silvers on Donald Trump's dime.

cl I am not saying rhetoric. I am saying facts.
The one standing candidate who said he would enforce E-verify to try to prevent illegal aliens from working here was Romney. He said it often in debates.
The other candidates have no executive experience compared to Romney. Governor is an executive office.
Poor people will always live shorter lives than rich. On the average, richer people are smarter and do not become obese, drunks, and they do healthy activities rather than be obese couch potatoes.
I am in the minority that Romney care doesn't bother me because this was an attempt in Mass. to get more people insured who could afford to buy insurance, and an attempt to not let them leech off everyone else.
I personally know illegal aliens here who have tens of thousands of dollars stashed at home, have built houses back in mexico, and they pay not one thin dime for their health care.

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease and not covering the pill on an insurance policy doesn't prevent anyone access to the pill. You're comparison isn't fair and is disingenuous.

Surgery, drug coverage and pregnancy planning are not always life threatening or "necessary", but access to medical care improves health and increases the likelihood of a positive outcome.

Not covering surgeries or drugs does not prevent access to them either. However, for low income people the financial hurdle can effectively prevent access to any medical care including family planning.

Anyway, the point is whether or not a religious belief can be used to restrict health care options to an employee -- who may not share the same beliefs.

I find CL's comparison to be both fair and ingenuous.

EightBall says

Let's put this awful law in the hands of the other side - suddenly HHS Secretary Palin decides that insurers must cover abstinence education as a benefit. Who would be crying foul then?

Oh, this is an easy question; I am surprised that you don't know the answer...

-- NO ONE --

Yes, no one would be crying foul if insurers were required to cover abstinence education. I don't think that there is anyone -- anyone sane that is -- would would not agree that abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and STDs. The problem arises when people want to teach abstinence exclusively at the expense of sex-ed. This is a foolish position, and we currently know that abstinence only education leads to equal if not higher levels of STDs and teen pregnancy just in the kids who "accept" the pledge. This says nothing to the other kids who are denied a comprehensive sex-ed.

The GOP says

Teach a man to fish and all that. I'd much rather have the fish comeback, so I can catch them myself, that to be feed Long John Silvers on Donald Trump's dime.

Yeah, but Trump already owns the lake with the fish, and all the game in the King's wood.

If he is feeling generous he may let you do a little hunting and fishing, and you only have to give him 90% of your catch.

I hope the lunch your eating right now meets federal nutritional guidelines cloud. Because you don't want to make the govternment angry, now do you???

Clambo said: We won't see Romney bow to a saudi prince who's descended from savage nomadic desert tribes...
Making worthless wasteful (mal)investments in solar schemes, electric cars and windmill boondoggles is not going to be repeated.
Well, its either one or the other. We currently get almost 10% of our oil imports from the Saudis (exceeded only by Canada & Mexico, with some African nations rising quickly). I'd rather keep that money in house than send it overseas like you want to do.

"We won't see Romney bow to a saudi prince who's descended from savage nomadic desert tribes..."

No, Romney just thinks that this guy, is a "prophet, seer, and revelator" of god's will on earth. i.e. - if this guy tells Romney to take a second wife, Romney does it. In fact if this guy tells Romney, "God wants me to marry your wife." Romney starts shopping for wedding gifts.

Oh, yeah... and Romney thinks that his underpants have magical powers.

leoj707 says

Anyway, the point is whether or not a religious belief can be used to restrict health care options to an employee -- who may not share the same beliefs.

Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is the direct result of a decision to have sex not something you get from sitting on a dirty toilet or eating a rotten cheeseburger or the result of falling off a cliff. Not paying for insurance that covers the pill or the "morning after abortion inducing pill" is not restricting healthcare options. Hell, you can buy the morning after pill from a freaking vending machine now.

http://www.americablog.com/2012/02/how-mormons-and-scalia-prove-that-obama.html

"In United States v. Lee, the Supreme Court found that there was nothing unconstitutional in requiring an Amish employer to withhold and pay Social Security taxes for his workers even though “the Amish faith prohibited participation in governmental support programs.”

Here’s how they put it:

“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

EightBall says

Pregnancy is not a disease.

Right, I thought we covered this. Neither is a broken bone, sprained ankle or tape worms, but they are all health issues.

EightBall says

Pregnancy is the direct result of a decision to have sex not something you get from sitting on a dirty toilet or eating a rotten cheeseburger or the result of falling off a cliff.

If it abstinence only education programs have taught us anything it is that people have sex. Regardless of whether or not you feel that your god(s) don't want them to. You might not want to admit it but we are born addicted to sex. It is a basic human drive much stronger than people want to admit. It is entirely unrealistic to expect people to not engage in sexual activity, and that without proper precautions, pregnancy is a result.

EightBall says

Not paying for insurance that covers the pill or the "morning after abortion inducing pill" is not restricting healthcare options.

Yes, it is. Birth control is a health care option, and while it may be difficult for those in an ivory tower to understand, the price of the pill will effect the health care choices of poor people.

EightBall says

Hell, you can buy the morning after pill from a freaking vending machine now.

So you are suggesting the solution to expensive birth control like the pill is to provide cheap abortion pills in vending machines?

Yes, yes... it is funny how people so opposed to abortion don't actually want to do anything to prevent the unplanned pregnancies that will result in abortions.

Newt in 2012, with the option to vote for Mitt Romney.

Anything but Obama, frankly will do.. even Ron Paul.

leoj707 says

If it abstinence only education programs have taught us anything it is that people have sex. Regardless of whether or not you feel that your god(s) don't want them to. You might not want to admit it but we are born addicted to sex. It is a basic human drive much stronger than people want to admit. It is entirely unrealistic to expect people to not engage in sexual activity, and that without proper precautions, pregnancy is a result.

A kick in the nuts usually will fix this natural attraction or addiction to sex. And yes it becomes a male health issue.

thomas.wong1986 says

A kick in the nuts usually will fix this natural attraction or addiction to sex. And yes it becomes a male health issue.

While it might fix the "natural" attraction of an individual it does not fix the addiction to sex. That overwhelming drive just gets redirected...

Frankly, the whole thing smacks of Clinton-era cries, where despite getting all they wanted, the Right despised him.

Perhaps this is why there is a lack of specificity to the responses here for AIJ. It's hard to rail against your own policies, hopes and dreams.

leoj707 says

That overwhelming drive

shock therepy.. does wonders.

thomas.wong1986 says

shock therepy.. does wonders.

*ah-hem*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_electrostimulation

Remember the SNL episode where Chris Farley is on a Japanese game show?

EightBall says

I don't see why anyone should have a problem with allowing a conscience exemption.

Because then we would be allowing a religious institution to, on their own free will, enter the commercial sector, and then impose their faith on their employees.

Perhaps you missed CLs post concerning how the supreme court has ruled on this.
CL says

“When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes that are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees.”

EightBall says

The constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

In that context "of" and "from" are the same. You can not have freedom of religion without being free from the dictates of other religions.

By your reasoning it would be OK for an islamic mosque to purchase a business and then require all employees to pray to allah 5 times a day. The employees are "free" to practice any religion they want, but on company time they are not free from the dictates of their islamic employers.

EightBall says

Birth control pills may be purchased with a prescription at a drugstore or clinic. They cost about $15–$50 a month.

Planned Parenthood works to make health care accessible and affordable. Some health centers are able to charge according to income. Most accept health insurance. If you qualify, Medicaid or other state programs may lower your health care costs.

Hmmm... you are making a good argument for national single payer heath coverage for all. If the government covered all health care -- as every other industrialized country does -- then religious employers would never have to worry about any conflicts if interest when providing health coverage.

leoj707 says

you are making a good argument for national single payer heath coverage for all. If the government covered all health care

What does "Single Payer" even mean? It's not National healthcare. We need a not for profit, federal controlled, from top to bottom Health Care. Even if it means we paid considerably more in taxes to pay for it. A system where your publicly traded 401K sweet hearts can't participate in. The hospitals would be Government owned, the pupils would be Government trained(a perk for paying the higher taxes) Doctors would be educated on the governments dime, and then have to work in the Federal system for a set amount of years before they can practice in the Private practice. Which there would still and always be a private healthcare, as people that have money are NUTZ and think that unless they pay ungodly thousands for a nose bleed they are somehow getting ripped off or the medical care is inferior somehow.

Like for some stupid reason, India's health care we would call ridiculously inadequate, but yet we fawn all over the Indian Doctors, and pay them more than everyone else, when they come to practice in this country, like they are somehow smarter than everyone else.

We're so full of SHIT I don't even know where to begin sometimes.

I'm not don't subscribe to either party, but my vote would be Ron Paul.

Fiscal policy in this country is the real problem we face, and he has always resisted the road this nation has gone down financially.

Sadly, nothing is going to change no matter who is elected.

George Bush and Barack Obama are both guilty of spending vast amounts of money on wars and bailouts. I voted for Obama, and I'm frankly disappointed that he has continued the fiscal nonsense that had gone on for years before him.

No doubt Mitt Romney will do the same if he's elected.

Nothing will change in this country until people are pushed to the brink and violent revolution occurs.

It's time we stop blaming the 1% or the 99% for our troubles, and realize that the government is the problem.

nw888 says

It's time we stop blaming the 1% or the 99% for our troubles, and realize that the government is the problem.

But is is the 1% who finances the campaigns, gets elected to office, and pays for all the lobbying. If government is doing something that adversely effects the 99% you can be sure that they were directed to do it by the 1%.

nw888 says

Nothing will change in this country until people are pushed to the brink and violent revolution occurs.

I fear that you may be correct.

leoj707 says

1%

If we don't stop with this bogus boogie man the evil "1%" and replace it with Names and facts, then the corruption and fraud will continue.
The problem is not the equality of income, it's the mass conflict of interest going unchallenged on so many corporate and government levels.

I can't for the life of me see how taxing these charlatans more will curb their livelihood, they'll just have to steal more to make up the difference.

I agree with the statements about corruption and lobbying. Our society, though, is confusing the 1% with the .00001%.

I fear that class warfare is brewing, when the real problem is that the government has allowed itself to turn into a fascist regime that works for corporations and not the people, rich or poor.

nw888 says

I agree with the statements about corruption and lobbying. Our society, though, is confusing the 1% with the .00001%.

Yes, I agree that it is not so much the 1% as it is the 0.5% or perhaps the 0.01% that really run things, but 0.00001% is like 30 people and I don't think that all power is concentrated so much. Even in a monarchy the empowered aristocracy is larger than 0.00001%.

However, the entire 1% have been the real benefactors of how things have been run.

nw888 says

I fear that class warfare is brewing, when the real problem is that the government has allowed itself to turn into a fascist regime that works for corporations and not the people, rich or poor.

Class warfare has been going on for a long time, and the bottom 99% have been loosing. One just needs to look at the economic divide over the past 40 years to see the results of the war.

I don't think the government is yet "fascist", but we are well on our way to getting there. It is however a regime that works for corporations. Regardless of what Mitt may think corporations are not people. The people behind the curtain that we are being asked to ignore is the 0.5% to 0.01% -- or perhaps if you are correct they are the 0.00001% -- and they are running things.

leoj707 says

However, the entire 1% have been the real benefactors of how things have been run.

Got any names and just how they benefited?

I bet you are confusing classic Anti trust laws, being committed by living breathing human beings, with a name going unchallenged. Confusing that with this big massive rich man's club that consist of everyone that has over a million or two in the bank, and meets once a week to concoct ways to Fuck the little guy.

leoj707 says

By your reasoning it would be OK for an islamic mosque to purchase a business and then require all employees to pray to allah 5 times a day. The employees are "free" to practice any religion they want, but on company time they are not free from the dictates of their islamic employers.

I see where you are going with this and I agree that simply buying a business and forcing Sharia on someone would be really wrong. A church opening a school with religious instruction (in addition to secular subjects) is a far different matter, don't you think? Besides, in this instance they aren't forcing someone to do something - they are simply not funding something. This is very different than the scenario you propose. In this case they are not forbidding anything - they just don't want to pay for it because it is against their teaching. The government is forcing them to DO something not the other way around.

leoj707 says

Hmmm... you are making a good argument for national single payer heath coverage for all. If the government covered all health care -- as every other industrialized country does -- then religious employers would never have to worry about any conflicts if interest when providing health coverage.

Single payer has the same problem that the current law has - the federal government is inserted into your personal life. Isn't this the complaint of the leftwing nutjobs all of the time - that the religious nutjobs are wanting to interfere with personal choices? GUESS WHAT! This is what the government is doing to the religious institutions - exactly what they decry.

If there were single-payer catastrophic coverage I could probably go along with it. No one should go bankrupt because they get seriously ill or injured. I have serious problems with yielding micromanagement of ANYTHING to the federal government - be it education or healthcare.

Here's my rant:

I'm part of the 1%, and I don't have a lobbyist. I pay a lot of taxes each year. From what I can see, I don't have much to thank the government for. They take my tax dollars and spend it on wars and bailing out even richer people than myself, and then they bail out homeowners that made bad bets on their house flipping game.

On top of that, people hate me for being one of the "greedy" 1% jerks that is making this country horrible. And it's all my fault because I worked 80 hours a week for years to build a business and provide a financial safety net for myself and my family, while the 99% watched football games and went out drinking with their buddies and sat on the beach every weekend.

But because I've been so "lucky" to give all that up to make money, I'm vilified by the 99%, and I "owe" them more of my money.

(Sigh)

nw888 says

On top of that, people hate me for being one of the "greedy" 1% jerks that is making this country horrible. And it's all my fault because I worked 80 hours a week for years to build a business and provide a financial safety net for myself and my family, while the 99% watched football games and went out drinking with their buddies and sat on the beach every weekend.

And there's supposed to be absolutely not a God damn thing wrong with none of that. Kudos to you for all of your hard work, and God bless the folks willing to ride in the back of the landscape truck, instead of driving the truck to the job. The problem is there are real people making real conscious decisions to draw lines in the sand, and are controlling business with the help of our government to give control of whole industries and verticals to a relative few. And they all want you to take the wrap, while they fuck the folks at the ball game on Sunday, in back room deals to screw them over even harder come Monday morning.

If I had to pick names to blame, I would certainly look at this list first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_Senators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

It's nice to know that there are people like you out there that get it. Thank you. I wish we had more people in this country such as yourself. One day the revolution will come. One day decent hard working people, no matter what % they're in, will come together to stop the oppression of our current political machine.

nw888 says

It's nice to know that there are people like you out there that get it. Thank you. I wish we had more people in this country such as yourself. One day the revolution will come. One day decent hard working people, no matter what % they're in, will come together to stop the oppression of our current political machine.

It's not people like you that are the problem. It's the top 0.1% or 0.01% that have enough money to buy politicians (e.g. the Koch brothers).

Yes that is true. It seems we as people are only blaming the .01%, and no one is noting that the politicians are to blame. They should resist temptation and vow to do what is good for the people they serve, rather than their pockets. I wish we were focused solely on occupying the white house, and not just wall street.

nw888 says

I'm part of the 1%

Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical, but often "successful" persons overestimate what % they are in, and how government/tax reforms would effect them.

Joe the plumber is a great example of this.

nw888 says

I pay a lot of taxes each year.

Well, clearly you don't pay Romney's tax rate.

nw888 says

On top of that, people hate me for being one of the "greedy" 1% jerks that is making this country horrible...

...But because I've been so "lucky" to give all that up to make money, I'm vilified by the 99%, and I "owe" them more of my money.

The 99% does not "hate" -- or you for that matter -- the 1%, they just want to be given the same level of opportunity that past generations has been given. Social mobility and wealth distribution over the past 40 years clearly shows that opportunity is a thing of the past.

If you are paying so much in taxes it is likely that you are doing productive work. Romney gets his taxes low through rent seeking unproductive activities (numerous other threads discuss this). Any tax reforms are unlikely to affect your income.

Also, people tend to vastly underestimate the level of luck that was required to achieve their financial success. Many people will work 80/hrs a week and do all the "right" things, but success never "clicks" for them.